Navigate:

Bush speech unlikely to reassure nervous GOP

Text Size

-

+

reset

The president now faces the prospect that his campaign to portray this year’s “surge” policy as working could stall under closer scrutiny by lawmakers.
AP Photo

President Bush felt good going into last night’s Oval Office address, aides said, since he finally had some fresh facts on his side and was able to describe a partial drawdown of troops as a “return on success” after years of setbacks and frustrations.

“Hopefully, the numbers are only going down from here,” said one administration official. A White House official talked about a "plan for success" and insisted that the speech outlined "a mission change based on success and progress on the ground and not a timetable for a hasty withdrawal."

But White House confidence that Bush, with help from Army Gen. David Petraeus, has regained political momentum for the war is about to be sorely tested. Not all Republicans were thrilled with the speech, and one top Republican Senate adviser said it amounted to unrealistic “happy talk.”

The president now faces the prospect that his campaign to portray this year’s “surge” policy as working could stall under closer scrutiny by lawmakers, including in his own party, who are either skeptical of his words or worried about how voters will perceive them, or both.

In a brief reference during the 17-minute speech, Bush pledged resolve after the assassination Thursday of the leader of the Sunni Arab revolt against Al Qaeda militants in western Iraq’s Anbar province. But the death of the tribal sheik, whom Bush had met just days ago in a trip to the region, was a demoralizing blow to the administration, since he was an instrumental figure in the progress in Anbar that the White House most often points to as a success story.

Furthermore, Politico has obtained a congressionally mandated White House report that is going to Capitol Hill on Friday, concluding that the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress on just nine of 18 political and security benchmarks, up by just one from a similar report in July.

Besides that, the withdrawal numbers may sound better than they are: This is going to be, as one aide put it, “a protracted drawdown.” The administration estimates that 100,000 troops could remain in Iraq when the next president takes over, and Bush referred in his speech to “U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.” The administration compares the arrangements being made to the ones the U.S. has with Afghanistan, and contends they’re good for both this country and the Iraqis. But it provides fodder for Democrats who complain about an “endless war.”

As Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) put it in a statement sent minutes after Bush stopped speaking: “It is long past time to end a war that never should have started.”

Drawdown estimates might be overly optimistic

Administration officials are starting to warn that calculations on the magnitude of the drawdown made by news organizations are overly optimistic. Bush and Petraeus described their pullback plans in terms of Army brigades. News organizations tried to translate that into a number of soldiers, but may not have done so correctly. The most widely used estimate is that the drawdown Petraeus has described would mean that by July, 30,000 of the more than 160,000 troops in Iraq would leave without being replaced.

That may be high. The number is really somewhere between 22,000 and 30,000, and on the lower end of the spectrum, the administration estimates. That’s because the surge consisted of 21,500 additional fighters, or “trigger-pullers,” as the military says, and about 8,000 more troops were added to support them, in everything from helicopters to fuel. Petraeus has not decided how many of the support troops he can spare, if any. “We don’t want people to say they were misled,” an administration official said.

However, Petraeus has said there could be more drawdowns than the minimums he described, and he plans to keep them coming. “The intention here is to keep the drawdown going beyond the return of the surge forces,” an administration official said.

Readers' Comments (505)

GWBush loves to get his dour face on TV and give speeches in hopes that his words alone can change the ugly picture of his War in Iraq. How frustrated must GWBush be these days? Plenty, if you watched him last evening. Whatever bump in the polls GWBush has had over the past couple of weeks evaporated last night. He is the worst person in the world at delivering any message. The very last thing that the GOP needs is to have GWBush be the constant reminder of who started this war and which political party will pay the political cost of this war in November 2008/ GWBush has tons of personal pride. He honestly believes that he makes great decisions. Of course, all his staff are a bunch of YES men/women who constantly tell him what a GREAT President he is (DUMB). I will miss GWBush and his Dick when they both leave office in January 2009...NOT!

Not all Republicans were thrilled with the speech, and one top Republican Senate adviser said it amounted to unrealistic “happy talk.”

Well isn't this predictable! Yesterday Jim VendeHei di hidey ho, wrote his "wet dream" piece about the coming Dem domination and today he is back with more "wet dreams," this time with Mike Allen about "shakey" Reps and "fragile" coalitions which could force GWB's hand. And what sources do they site??? Who is is on record??? An unamed "top" Rep Senate ADVISER!!!! OOOOOOH how powerful is that????

GWB has outlined his "stratergy" and it is supported by the General in charge and improving conditions on the ground! The Dems have no strategy and are much more conflicted on the issue than Reps. So, once again, GWB is going to implement his policy and the Dems will be left to shout at Windmills!!!

Douglas in Kuwait

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire!" ...Sir Winston Churchill

What American President are ALL the GOP Presdiential canditates wanting to be known as? Ronald Reagan. Not one of the GOP Presidential wannabees even mentions GWBush by name, instead preferring to use the term "present/current administration." Pathetic is the only word I can think of that best describes GWBush and his supporters. GWBush has no problems in having thousands more American men and women die in Iraq and Afghanistan for no good reason other than to ensure this war lasts longer than his administration. Two of my sons are fighting this GWOT and my daily prayers and thoughts are only with them and their comrades in arms. Who will be the last American soldier to die for the honor of GWBush? Hopefully, not one of my sons!

Last spring, the MSM predicted a 'Goldwater type' meeting at the WH by GOP senators breaking with the president on Iraq and ensuring a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. The 'Matthews Meter' also predicted Obama would be eve3n with Hillary by now. It's all just wishful thinking. Allen and VandeHei just continue this effort to effect policy instead of reporting on it. On January 20, 2009, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq, strong D majorities in both houses of Congress but a Republican replacing GWB.

it's kind of strange how bush and the war are so unpopular, and, yet... somehow... almost miraculously, he continues to get more more troops, more funding, and expanded powers of interrogation. who's in control of congress again...?

i can not believe how this been overlooked by so many in the press, shrub moved the goal post, while abandoning the political solution all together!! from your 17-minute speech back to WH site...the "Liberal MSM" continues to carry water for shrub.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

everyone including bush himself has said that a political solution is needed, that the violence in Iraq requires "political reconciliation" and can not be accomplished by the military alone. he's walked away from the bench marks and "political reconciliation".

"Happy Talk" in TWO Politico pieces? Democrats exaggerate Bush's thrust more than Bush does himself. Does "Happy Talk" fit more readily into HillarySpeak? Will this simplify things enough for her to run with it?

Who will be the last American soldier to die for the honor of GWBush? Hopefully, not one of my sons!

man! does that question ever become more relevant today...so that a president gets to pass his mistake on to his successor. AWOL during his National Guard Service...AWOL as Commander in Chief. consistancy, a Bush halmark.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" John Kerry April 22, 1971all

Let's face it, the President has nothing else to say on this other than "stay the course" with a couple of tweaks. Iraq is a mess (that much I'll agree with Mitt on) and at this point leaving would only create a bigger mess than staying and trying to come up with some passable solution, however temporary. Still, the GOP has every right to worry. The longer this goes on, the more voters are reminded of what a debacle this has been from Day 1. The best they can hope for is palpable change of fortune, however fleeting, in Iraq between now and November 2008. Or it's welcome home Hillary....

SeattleLiberal, do you see that you are looking at this war entirely through the prism of Vietnam, including the same personalities and speeches that surrounded it? It's fallacious. This is not Vietnam. This is a post 9/11 world, rife with non-state terrorism, global conflict, and news cycle-driven public perceptions. These are new imperatives, new stakes, new dynamics. Get over Vietnam, boomers. Grow up. There's a new game in town. How do you ask a man to be the last to die? How should you cope if your children are killed in a war you don't agree with? You make your peace with that before your children sign up, just as they themselves do. Or, you realize that this is an all-volunteer military, the strongest in the history of the planet. So strong that it can even fight with one arm tied behind it's back. So strong that most regulations and political directives focus on holding it back rather than using it. Soldiers know they don't pick and choose where and when they fight, even if their parents don't. Next, it could be Darfur. Would that one be okay, especially if ordered by a Democratic President? I'll tell you one thing, when troops see that they can be ordered to war, and then have the rug pulled out from under them, good luck recruiting when it's time for that mission. This whole issue only ensures more than ever that when "the people" call the Pentagon to defend them or execute U.S. policy elsewhere, no one will pick up the phone.

I loved the way our fearless chickenhawk hides behind his two new mouthpieces: the general and the ambassador, both, of course, ueber Americans. What a disaster. We're gonna be there for another ten years (if we're lucky.)

He honestly believes that he makes great decisions. Of course, all his staff are a bunch of YES men/women who constantly tell him what a GREAT President he is (DUMB).

Yes. He does believe that he is making the best decision for America. Only time will tell.

You can contrast this with the Democrats. They say that the war is "lost". They say the the soldiers who have died were a "waste". They say that while they voted for the war, they did not really support it. Yet, they still send men and women into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They still vote the funds that allow them to stay and fight. They "heartily" endorsed the military Commander that they say cannot be trusted. They ask for briefings and reports from the President and his staff, but then they call the ones that report "progress" a "lie" and the authors "betrayers", and point to parts that show more progress as needed and say "this is the truth, except it it really worse than that." They say "we should withdraw immediate", but they still vote to continue the war.

Bush may turn out to be wrong, but at least he believes in what he is doing. The Dem-controlled Congress has no similar excuse. If they truly believed what they say, they would vote to withhold funding and bring the war to an end. But they don't. How moral is that? Where are their ethics if they say "its all a waste", but then vote for more of it? They did vote to approve it. They now say they were wrong. But they still vote to fund it.

Compare that to the issue of the Patriot Act and the electronic monitoring of international communications (Dems call in Domestic wiretapping). The Dems say, "It is wrong. It denies us essential rights to privacy." Yet they acknowledge teh program works and has stopped terrorism. They also just voted to approve the program. So if it violates the rights of citizens, why are the Dems approving it? Have they no morals or ethics?

They invite Petreus to give a report on Iraq to Congress. But even before he has reported, they call him a liar, a shill for Bush, and someone who has betrayed his country. Is this fair? Is this ethical? They asked Rove and Harriet Miers to testify and wanted Bush to waive his "Presidential Priviledge to do it. What do you think the Dems in Congress would have done to them if they had complied?

The Dems have asked the Preesident for "a new direction" and "troop withdrawals". But on Wednesday, the Dems were already saying, "Its not a new direction, and its not enough." before Bush gave his address on Thursday. How ethical is that? They condemn the contents of Bush's offer of withdrawals before he even announces it! Where are their ethics?

The answer is that Dems have no ethics and no morals. They are trying to "frame" issues to attack Bush. They are trying to obtain political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 election. They will do anything, say anythig, and smear anybody in order to enhance their efforts at this power grab. Is this the kind of leaders we want ruling our nation? I think not!

......... getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They're sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They're allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The streets are turning to gold, and yesterday, it rained diamonds. Tommorrow, the Iraqis plan to open the damn and the rivers will run with oil. Soon, Disney will anounce plans for a theme park............